click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
leaders are digging in on the big sticking point of taxes ahead of tomorrow's white house summit. chuck todd is nbc's chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown." chuck, we've heard a lot from republicans. today at the bloomberg breakfast it was said that any tax measures had to be revenue positive over the long run that could be ten years out. eventually have to contribute toward deficit reduction. that is not what republican senator john cornyn was saying exactly the opposite what he said on our show yesterday that it has to be revenue neutral. how does the president hope to bridge this devoid? >> reporter: well, you know, they have an interesting tactic here. they believe and frankly behind the scenes so do house republicans believe it will be easier to sell a larger deal that has some things in it that nobody's crazy about on certain sides. whether some trims to entitlements on the democratic side or some of these revenue proposals on the republican side that if it's a large deal, $2.5 trillion to $4 trillion and maybe even $6 trillion in the out years meaning th
as you know can happen instantly if some big player decides to sell off. >> obviously i'm not qualified to speak on behalf of the markets and what they will or will not do, but just my own judgment based upon all the various kinds of conversations that are occurring, are that we will find a way to deal with this issue. we do know that the root cause of our debt and deficit problem is spending is just too high. we also want economic growth. we don't want to embrace policies that we sincerely believe will damage the economy and hurt job creation. if you do that, then you lose even more revenues. so what we want to do is get a downpayment on our deficit and debt by getting spending cuts. i think that there are constructive conversations that are occurring both sides of the rotund rotunda, both sides of pennsylvania avenue. i do believe cooler heads will prevail. >>> what are the constructive conversations? for instance, are some elements of the gang of six proposal, i know you said it's not specific enough, it doesn't go adequately to slowing the growth of health spending, but are there co
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)